John Boehner: Who is going to jail over this scandal? Which of the plethora of scandals?

John Boehner stated in a press conference today: "Who is going to jail over this scandal?" Which scandal? LIBOR? House GOP gutting diplomatic security a year before the Benghazi attacks? Banks auto-signing foreclosing on homes that were already paid off? HSBC money laundering for drug cartels and Al-Qaeda affiliates? Director of the SEC Mary Jo White being paid by financial industry defense law firm $500,000 a year bribe (ahem... I mean retirement plan)? Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas obvious conflict of interest for his wife being paid by plaintiffs that appear in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, such as Citizens United Vs. FEC that created a new legal channel to affect elections and public policy with excessive and obtuse dark money?

No, none of that, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was instead referring to Internal Revenue Service bringing extra scrutiny to non-profit 501c4 organizations whose legal intended purpose was to "promote the general welfare" but public statements were to oppose taxes in all there forms. The scrutiny started back in 2010, after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Citizens United, and the anti-government movement flooded the IRS with requests most with newly named organizations with "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in them. As I wrote yesterday that the of the non-profit organizations that the IRS provided extra scrutiny to, 25% had conservative leanings with telling anti-tax terms in their names. All of whom were non-profit organizations that were the children of the Super PACs and the Citizen United decision, whose sole purpose was to make their finances opaque as possible and hiding the contributors before they went off to run deceptive political ads for the upcoming 2010 midterm elections. The actions of the IRS were far from adroit but it was equally distance from being illegal; it was equally legal to the Bush administration auditing Planned Parenthood, NAACP, Greenpeace, National Organization of Women and other left from center non-profits that existed before the Bush administration, and continue long after the shot callers of their political harassment have left office (unlike a majority of the non-profit organizations that were targeted). Mark Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation sparking this controversy, after 8 years of promoting the politicization of the IRS under the Bush administration, brought this to national attention after a 13 month effort. So has it become common wisdom that audits and extra scrutiny are only a tools to be used against the left without repercussions? Could there be any possibility that the same standards of behavior be for both sides of the aisle not leniency for those calling for uncompassionate market forces to mete out "justice" and rigid higher standards for proponents of universal forgiveness?

Please comment what you think about the situation, and of course share and forward this to your social network.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/15/18275058-boehner-on-irs-controversy-whos-going-to-jail?lite

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/15/boehner-on-irs-scandal-who-is-going-to-jail/

http://www.alternet.org/story/10496/defunding_the_left

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-targeted-naacp-in-2004-91284.html

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/10/mark-levin-may-have-prompted-irs-conservative-group-revelations/

Good retirement if you can get it!

Recently it has been reported that SEC head Mary Jo White will be receiving lifetime retirement payments of $42,000 a month or $500,000 a year from her most immediate private sector employer Debevoise & Plimpton LLP a law firm that defends some the biggest Wall Street banks from SEC prosecutions. Though I am disgusted by the obvious conflict of interest, I actually want to bring attention to how very generous this retirement is structured compared to vital public servants pensions.

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP retirement fund is entirely unfunded, which means if the law firm has a fiscal quarter in the red Mary Jo White won't get 3 payments or $128,000 (don't cry for Ms. White since in a bizarre attempt to avoid an appearance of conflict of interest, she requested that she get paid upfront for the 4 years that she would be the top prosecutor of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP's clients). The retirement payments are pending on the continuation of the profitability of the firm due to the retirement plan is not pre-funded and is not a participant of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) a Federal program that is the pension equivalent to the FDIC and deposit accounts within retail banks. Well Debevoise & Plimpton LLP is a private company and is free to structure their compensation however they want, I would prefer that they didn't compensate exactly the person in charge of enforcement of laws that affect their clients, but c'est la vie.

Now compare and contrast with the retirement fund for your local mail carrier: with passage of HR 6407 December 20th, 2006 that restructured the USPS's pension fund and retiree healthcare so that it would be future funded for 75 years. Unlike every other department of the federal government; unlike every private company with a future funded pension regulated by PBGC; unlike the retirement plan of the SEC head-- USPS has to plan and pay for the retirement of their current and future employees some of whom have yet to be born, not to mention worked a day for the entirely postage dependent Postal Service. What is the benefit to extending out the self sufficient service's liabilities a couple of generations into the future? What happens when the USPS permanently closes up shop (an unfathomable circumstance for our founder fathers whom assumed the postal service was essential service for our government)?

The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 was the legislation that broke asunder the fiscal relationship between Federal Government and the United States Postal Service, no longer would the USPS be reliant on the tax payer to provide a government service. Self sufficiency was adequate enough for 36 years, other than a destruction of a public good, what possible rationale could be given for the 2006 reform that passed in a lame duck congress (a month and a half after Democrats took back both House & Senate)? If it was so necessary to reform the pension of the US Postal Service then why wasn't the same reform implemented in the Pension Protection Act Of 2006 that was signed August 17th 2006 a mere four months and three days prior to signing of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act?

It is a continual push for free market austerity for the masses, and free market coddling for the economic elite; defined cost retirement benefits or 401ks is the norm for masses, and defined benefits or golden parachutes is the expected for the corporate titans; individuals who have little or no control over their golden years are told by the dynastic wealthy that should take investing in their own hands while at the same time cashing guaranteed retirement checks. Retirement policies should be standard and fair across the socioeconomic strata, with the goal to avoid what Thomas Paine described:

"It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread"
Rights of Man by Thomas Paine

H.R. 6407 (109th): Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act

Mary Jo White’s Latest Conflict of Interest

The Pension Protection Act Of 2006

http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/c2-01.htm